Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

The Gospels are written forms concretizing a developing oral tradition around the character of Jesus. They were not written during his alleged lifetime, but sixty to two-hundred years after the fact.

The biblical canon we know today was set three centuries after Christ; in the early centuries, there were literally hundreds of alleged Gospels, but the underlying logic that there are only four Gospels is fallacious and superstitious—Irenaeus of Lyon, for instance, argued that there are four winds, four compass points, four pillars of the world, and therefore only four gospels.

It's kind of arbitrary. But one of the more fascinating discussions is a consideration of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), which do appear to have some common source material, and the Johanine tradition (Gospel of John), which is considerably more mystical. The synoptic gospels themselves allow for some interesting questions; e.g., Are the Sermons on Mount and Plain the same event told differently, or two different events?

But the Gospel of John is entirely different; how it fits into the larger scheme—why the bishops selected it for the canon—is, after all these years, still something of a mystery. There are plenty of guesses, but nothing firm.

Still, though, I would highly recommend The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels. The book considers the development of the idea of the Devil in Christianity, but in doing so frames the gospels against recorded history in order to consider the differences between the tales.

In the end, though, Jesus did not write the Gospels because he could not have. Well, sort of. An omnipotent god-creature can certainly do anything, but it just seems more in accord with the natural way of the world that the first tales should be orally transmitted before they are recorded in writing.

And the general reliability of the gospels is a matter of faith. Taken in an historical context, no, they're not reliable. Consider that what contemporaneous accounts of Jesus exist are all second-hand at best.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

If the Gospels are not true 100%, probably some facts are inside there,
but overall they are fallacy,
then, the TWO Free Gifts of "eternal life" and "forgiveness of sin", are only a fantasy, hallucination,
right?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

If the Gospels are not true 100%, probably some facts are inside there,
but overall they are fallacy,
then, the TWO Free Gifts of "eternal life" and "forgiveness of sin", are only a fantasy, hallucination,
right?

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree, but it's not absolute. Afterlife, if it can exist at all, can exist without God.

But that's the thing about faith; in the end, if you believe in and accept the Word of God, you are to simply have faith that it all makes sense. After all, God is Alpha and Omega; we are merely human.

That's certainly one way of looking at it, and I know plenty who would agree with you. But in reality, if we believe God exists as described in a holy text, then we must also accept the possibility that the truth is buried within.

The problem with literalism is that it is often both desperate and myopic. Over the centuries, Christian scholars and philosophers have contradicted one another, contradicted themselves, and contradicted what is written in the Bible, yet for some reason people still treat the Biblical faith as if it is timeless and unchanging. That is to say, by the time we get to saints arguing about the question of evil in a blind horse, there is a problem.

I believe it was St. Ignatius Loyola who posited that "the sacrifice of the intellect is that in which God most delights", which despite apt mockery in more recent times, simply refers to trust without knowledge. And in a way, history has demonstrated the problem; many of the contradictions, oversimplifications, distortions, and exploitations of scripture over the years have come about because Christian advocates were scrabbling after short-term answers and immediate gratification.

We might point to modern politics as an example. To the one, Christian opponents of abortion will remind that God blesses every conception and birth. To the other, there is the gay fray—civil rights for homosexuals—in which Christians argue that being gay is not natural. Of course, there is Minnesota State Rep. Steve Simon (DFL), who asked the obvious question: If God doesn't like homosexuals, why does he keep making them?

It's kind of a silly question, but only because we keep running around in these bizarre circles. The anti-abortionists give the authority of creation and birth to God; the heterosupremacists would rather disregard that proposition. It worked better when they could get away with the idea that homosexuality was a mere choice, but now that the point doesn't work anymore, we see the dangers of short-term gratification. Certes, it makes sense to remind of God's omniscience and authority in the abortion battle, but it's a harder principle to accept when one wants to punish or abolish homosexuality.

In history, this process has played out repeatedly. Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian, even the whole Council at Nicea. Various pronouncements from diverse figures prominent in Christian history have certainly stood in contrast to one another, but the original expressions often intended to settle a specific and limited point.

All these years later, the Christian faith new adherents enter is a product of such conflicts. What many would describe as American "evangelical" or "fundamental" Christianity has no real Biblical foundation, as it is largely a collection convenient theological perspectives neurotically designed for self-empowerment in non- or un-Christian ways.

While it's not just the American evangelical Protestants, they serve as an excellent example. One raised to hold certain faith will find only questions and complications when they undertake their own independent, responsible study of the Bible instead of simply swallowing the rhetorical pabulum served from the pulpit. So many Christians in my society have given their hearts and minds over to a lie; the Jesus they are told to accept is a dangerous distortion of Scripture.

Your lifetime does not reach so far back as to have witnessed the original acts described in the Bible. The Christian faith you first encountered in your life was, necessarily, considerably different from the idyllic Christianity so many describe and history seems to have overlooked insofar as it is generally absent from the record.

A Christian will die like an animal too............

Click to expand...

I know it's hardly of comfort, but Christians are human, and humans are animals.

The thing is that God knows what is in a person's heart, so if one's reason for faith is to earn a reward, He will see that greed.

),
eternal life and forgiveness of sin are only joke.
A Christian will die like an animal too............

Click to expand...

What's wrong with being an animal? We went through billions of years of evolution to get where we are now, be proud of it! Yes, eternal life is a joke, but it makes a joke of our present life, so we are better without this silly fantasy.

Let us consider for a moment the Book of Job, in which a whole bunch of stupid stuff leads to God losing a bet, whereupon He descends over Job, gives the poor guy—the butt of a divine joke, at that—a tongue-lashing for the ages, and these days preachers like to tell us it's about Job's faith.

Now, it's true that from a purely atheistic standpoint, the obvious question is how one can know it's really God talking. In truth, though, I'm not sure that would matter. If I cursed God, and then suddenly the sky responded by lecturing me angrily and at length, yes, there is a real possibility that I would, upon accounting all the kif and caps I might have consumed in recent hours, days, or weeks, accept the event as indicative of God's existence.

Except for the Hitchhiker Hitch. Of course, if the heads and tails are eternal life versus murdering God by starving Him of faith ... oh, right. Empirical. The downside of empirical.

But, hey, you get the point, right? If God takes the time out of His day to get in my face? It's less a matter of believing, and more about finally taking sides. Very well, God exists. Do I accept His authority?

Life goes on ... for everyone else. Perhaps eternally. And that's great until people realize that eternal life as a Universe unto oneself means they're not so much donut-shaped as stuffed like a kielbasa.

Never mind, I digress.

Think of it this way: One chooses faith—

—if he is right to do so, he achieves knowledge in the fulfillment of eternal reward.

—if he is wrong, he's dead, so he won't care.​

But therein lies the trick; it's not just Pascal's Wager. God knows what is in one's heart. Faith must be genuine.
____________________Notes: